NLRB Seeks to Overturn Voter-Approved Secret Ballot Laws in Arizona, South Dakota

CNSNews ^ | April 28, 2011 | Fred Lucas

[jazusamo]

Are there any FReepers working in law that would have insight as to why the NLRB chooses to only sue two states instead of the four at this time?

Solomon's reason of it not being efficient doesn't seem logical, could there possibly be something about SC and UT that would make for a more difficult case for NLRB?

[AU72]

We don’t have an Administration, we have a Junta.

[jazusamo]

Agreed. Obama and his appointed thugs will try any end run around Congress possible to gain power for the thug in the White House.

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

[PapaBear3625]

Are there any FReepers working in law that would have insight as to why the NLRB chooses to only sue two states instead of the four at this time?

So that if they lose, they can figure out a way to improve their approach for the other two states?

[101voodoo]

Whatever happens this will wind up in the USSC and there Obama and his union thugs will lose.

I think this is a wonderful issue for the election as it highlights the extreme connection between the unions and the Left in the country. Since the majority of Americans now see the Unions as greedy and are FOR reductions in tax payer benefits for them, the issue will be a winner for the Republicans.

[TheOldLady]

You Know You Love Free Republic
Click the Pic

Give whatever you can
Or sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10

Lazamataz is fading away!

[jazusamo]

Thanks. That does seem like a possibility. Maybe they figure if they lost to all four states it would slam the door on them for future suits.

[backwoods-engineer]

Obama’s NRLB is treasonous. How DARE them commies seek to thwart the states. The damnable NRLB is not even Constitutional, anyway.

[jazusamo]

Good points and I agree that it could go to SCOTUS. With the present court I believe it’s pretty certain the NLRB will be shot down.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“Employees may vote in a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB, or they may persuade an employer to voluntarily recognize a union after showing majority support for one. The board contends the amendments violate the second provision.”

This sounds screwy to me. Hold the secret-ballot vote, and if the majority wants a union, so be it. Making people sign a card is pure union thuggery, and intimidation! And I’ve been the victim of union thuggery! I was too good a worker. producing too many parts per day.

[Maceman]

Are there any FReepers working in law that would have insight as to why the NLRB chooses to only sue two states instead of the four at this time?

Because it gives the NLRB a second bite at the apple if the first lawsuit doesn't go their way.

[Digger]

Never forget - THE ENEMY IS WITHIN

[bimboeruption]

Bye-bye Free Republic...hello, Police State.

[jazusamo]

Thanks, I thought that a possibilty too.

[NonValueAdded]

The board contends the amendments violate the second provision.

That is a pretty weak foundation. I predict the NLRB gets slapped down.

[meyer]

Death to unions.

[jazusamo]

I would seem to be weak to me also but with these thugs and a federal judge sympathetic to leftism it's still scary.

[PapaBear3625]

Card-check is like Democrat recounts -- the process continues until the union wins.

Those who refuse to sign are known to the union, and subject to harassment. Those who sign are unknown to management until the union gets a majority. So the union just keeps going until they get enough.

[Maverick68]

b